Another very simple yet elegant and painless solution to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the confiscation of private homes.

For the people in New London and elsewhere who are threatened with their homes being seized by any municipal government against their wishes they can sell it to the Army. Then buy it back later.

Just find a friend in the Army who is authorized to buy and sell. Even if is limited to petty cash items. Then sell the US Army your home for $1.00 and be sure to get a receipt.

If having a friend in the army who can make purchases presents a problem for you then call your nearest Army, Navy, Air Force base and ask to speak to the chaplain. They are a friend to everyone and they can usually take what we called 'candle money' for 'out of pocket expenses'. Or they can leave the bill marked unpaid with a balance due of $1.00. You can have the chaplain write a receipt on the back of your checkbook. You may as well use it for a receipt since you won't need to use it to pay an attorney.

Then take the receipt and hand it the judge in charge of the case and then tell the judge that you sold your home to the U.S. Army. The Army has something called 'imminent domain' (which we have been hearing a lot about recently). Except the imminence of their domain is far greater than the imminence of the domains of all other governments in the U.S.A. In simple terms it means that if they want something, they pull rank every time. There is not a municipality that can even think of taking your property then.

Then buy your home back from the Army for $1.00.

Normally when a local government made a claim on property it was frozen and could not be sold by the owner. That did not hold with the military. The military was exempt and always got what ever they wanted.

Precedence-

Army messengers rode between the Capital and both the fort at West Point and Baltimore (or the Baltimore defense works) until the telegraph arrived in the 1840's which was when the Army way stations were closed. Until then if a messenger needed a fresh horse or theirs turned up lame they got them from local farmers. Then when the ride was over they returned the horse.

It was actually a purchase and when the horse was returned it was sold back to the farmer. This is the legal basis for the Army being able to buy private homes and then later sell them back to the owner.

Once property is sold to the Army they own it. No town government or even state government is going ever take property away from the army. That is damn certain.

Details-

The value of the horses which the messengers temporarily bought from the farmers often approached the value of a man's home.

The rider was authorized to purchase and sell horses. He bought the horse and gave the owner a receipt. It was a valid purchase. The receipt was usually stamped -unpaid balance- or -balance due-.

The price on the receipt for the horse was fixed. It was the normal price for a standard work horse, which was used for plowing. But the messengers usually took the farmers fastest horse. It's value was far higher than a standard horse. These race horses were worth up to ten times that of a plow horse (and were claimed to be worth ten times the cost of a house on the receipt). Since this dollar amount is far less than the real value of the horse it establishes the legality of selling your home to the Army for an amount that is far less than its real market value. (Such as a dollar.)

Then when the ride was over the horse was returned. It was exchanged for the receipt and the farmer was often given some money. It may have been five to fifteen dollars.

There are many cases of the U.S. Army taking precedence over local municipal governments. Purchases are never questioned. There are also precedence's of the U.S. Army taking property that has already been paid for by municipal governments.

The U.S. Army is only required to justify their expenditures to the U.S. Congress. The amount and the purchases themselves are of no concern to either the Judicial branch, the Executive branch (except the Vice President who is the speaker of the House) or other governments. The courts have no say at all in regards to the purchases the Army makes.

Until at least the 1840's when the telegraph was invented the Army sent much of their communications by messengers. They usually chose messengers that could not read or write (and then timed them). It allowed an extra level of security. The receipts were made with an official stamp the messengers carried with them which had the words 'to be paid' and also 'amount due' since most farmers were illiterate and recognized the term 'amount due' more than 'to be paid' since they often used that term themselves in their business.

A vicious looking eagle similar to this was on the stamp but only his head and neck was included.

These transactions were always reviewed later and initialed. Since there were 22 attorneys and 9 judges that signed the Declaration of Independence (here) they frankly needed work in jobs that protected them from belligerent Tories. Nothing provided better protection than having 100 'friends' in the U.S. Army.**

So those receipts were often reviewed by one of these signers of the Constitution and that goes a heck of a long way to establishing the Constitutionality of such purchases.

Getting back to the horse return process. The person was given some money, five to fifteen dollars when he took the horse back. The money was for their inspection of the horse to determine that it was still in 'working order'. Five dollars was about a weeks pay so it was a good profit for allowing the Army to exercise your horse for you when it was normally something you had to pay someone to do. The only time a horse collapsed and died, to my knowledge, was at night when no other horses could be found. It was a ride to Charleston Harbor and that was way too far to ride a horse.

Why the legal oversight and review by prominent attorneys that had signed the Declaration of Independence? Sometimes a horse threw the messenger and ran off when it was miles from home and people would steal the horse. If it was a good horse then we had to pay more than the amount that was on the receipt to recover it. It could add up and people often exaggerated their lost horses 'potential' to become the greatest race horse of all times. It got very complicated and if you let the owners keep talking about their wonderful horse then they would keep on embellishing their story claims until they ended up claiming that their horse could actually fly.

The other problem was that there were gates on the main roads and the messengers would often leap the gates to deliver important messages or to make up for lost time. Some of these horse's would not quite cleanly make it over. If it was a stallion then it was no longer a stallion but a gelding that appeared to be a stallion and that fact might not show up until the spring when the mares did not foal but more often it was just a general tapering off of the stallions interest in the fairer sex over a period of time that gave away the fact that it was no longer a fully functioning stallion. The army bought a bunch of very expensive geldings but I was not a party to those purchases so I don't know how they are listed in the records. Those records were kept for the life of the horse in case there were later claims. Since the Army never threw away anything those records are probably around somewhere..

Often when a local government found out the Army was coming to them for certain supplies they would do several things. One is that they would hide the supplies and say they had nothing or that they only had a fraction of what they actually possessed. Also, the local governments would often send inferior goods in their place.

The Army would always investigate when they had suspicions. Every single one of them were investigated so that no municipal government would dare try it again. That lowered the frauds against the Army to a very low level.

The following may or may not pertain to this: Counties owned granaries then and they had to supply grain to the Army on command. They sometimes sent bad grain to discourage the Army from asking them again.

One year after the molds all sprouted different combines sent all their molded stores. There were three main types of deadly growths involved. One or two that caused convulsions, then there was Ergot that killed a lot of men outright or else gave them hallucinations that lasted for day and then one that caused anaphylactic shock, etc. The first poisons killed the soldiers in 20 minutes. One of the others took only ten minutes.

The cafeteria used first one bag of good grain and then the next until they got to the middle bags that had the bad grain hidden in them. Hundreds of soldiers died or were murdered this way. Tories spread rumors that the Army was experimenting on the soldiers to discover a bacterial agent to use against the English. Recruitment was nearly cut in half for awhile. The Army investigated and then imprisoned about 15 guilty officials for up to 25 years. We are not talking about Club Fed either. They were put in some Army dungeons that had been set aside for the English if they ever returned. They had to fight with rats for their own food.

The records will show that Thomas Jefferson wore a full uniform and acted as a (judge) advocate at some of those proceedings. It was within a couple years of the Whisky Rebellion when Thomas Jefferson also served as a (judge) advocate.

Previous work on this subject, though it is superceded is include below.

What the homeowners such as Susette Kelo should have brought before the Supreme Court is covered on this page.

Does the Supreme Court have the final say as far as the laws of the United States?

Not in every case. I suppose I should expose a caveat. (which is a hidden clause in the Constitution that we forefathers included). They are a kind of a back door access to the Federal Government. The following is one that is reserved for Supreme Court Justices. Oh, you are curious about the caveats. Well I have listed a bunch of them here for people to read. They are for citizens of the US to read. Non citizens might find them a bit too frightening to enjoy.

If those people in New London whose homes are being threatened feel that the Supreme court justices who voted against them broke the law then they can file civil and criminal charges against them for fraud. Supreme Court justices can be held responsible for their actions (on a personal level) at their jobs just like President Clinton and many other public officials found out when they broke the law or local customs (concerning oral sex).

If the home owners take those justices to court they may be convicted of criminal actions like taking bribes. Next is that caveat I was telling you about.

Unlike every other American the justices of the Supreme Court do not have the Supreme Court itself to appeal to if they are convicted. They cannot use the Supreme Court as it would be a conflict of interest. It would be like a judge hearing a case involving the bailiff of his own court. Unfortunately for them there is no other Supreme Court that they can appeal to. So they are stuck with one lower courts decision and that could mean time in prison.

You didn't know we forefathers saw that this might come up? It does seems almost like it's upside down. Well since the Supreme Court has already turned the Constitution and the whole country upside down then maybe the upside down nature of this information will put it all right side up.

What can the counties do to fully protect it's citizens property.

The counties and cities where those five justices live who voted in favor of this decision could now confiscate their homes and give them to a corporation that will use the land for the 'public good'. They can bulldoze the judges homes and turn the five properties into a parking lot, a public lavatory, a strip club, a 'head shop', and one Church of Satan. Each of these establishments qualifies as being of 'greater public use' than did the 5 judges homes.

These judges should not object to this proposal and happily accept it...or shouldn't they?

What can states do about this to protect its citizens?

If one or more of the states do not want to accept this decision by the Supreme Court since they feel it is in violation of the Constitution then that is a different matter than it is for individuals or counties who do not wish to accept it.

If one or more states don't like the decision then they should to go to their State Supreme Court who will make a decision as to whether the Supreme Courts decision constitutes a violation of the agreement that the U.S. Government made with their territory when they became a state.

[Statehood is a type of treaty between the United States and the citizens of the state as a group. Treaties are between groups of people and they allow redressing. If a treaty is violated you usually don't break (abrogate) it immediately. Since it involves groups of naive people treaties often get violated by accident so there was and should always be a method of redress. That process has to be adhered to when treaties are violated so that the offending party can make changes to set things right.]

I'll write that part again for the layman...and I am the main layman that I am writing this for. The US Supreme Court makes each state and it's citizens obey the US Constitution because that territory agreed to do that when they became a state. The U.S. Supreme court also has to obey the Constitution by enforcing it fairly. And also, each one of the justices has to obey the constitution individually. If the state supreme court decides they want out of the United States because the U.S. is violating the statehood agreement (due to the Supreme Court decision) then they have to give the U.S. Government a fair amount of time to change things and make thing all right again. Then the state has to wait a fair amount of time for the U.S. Government to respond. If the U.S. says that they are not going to fix things to make it adhere to the Constitution then the state can say 'goodbye'.

(It could work out well if a state like California decided to become a country. Think about it.)

There is no threatening involved this way and it is the proper mechanism to use in order to correct things.

There is either a clause or a mechanism that allows for corrections by both parties. That is why no state can just pull the plug on the United States of America. That is also why the south's action which started the Civil War was very illegal. They felt they were being strangled by export taxes but they did not give the United States a warning and the legal reason why they were quitting (I guess). They also did not allow the U.S. time to respond with corrective action. (Besides, that was a really pointless war. Had I been alive I could have gained independence for the south using only legislature in about 2 1/2 years. Instead the south was destroyed in twice that much time.)

I stated 'I guess' the south did not give the north adequate methods of redress because that was after Jefferson's life. So it is just a guess on my part. I just don't know what the issues were, what actions were promised or what actions were taken. I never studied it either. But then I never studied the Revolutionary war era for that matter. I just remember it. My knowledge is not 'spotty'. It's great for those periods when I was alive and involved in politics. My memories just have a big 150 year hole in them before it picks up again in this life.

It is as if I had slept for almost 200 years and then the noise of people tearing up my Constitution caused me to wake up. These memories are vague and I may have forgotten some details so don't take this information as legal advisement. You have go look this stuff up yourself or talk with a modern day attorney if you are interested. There are some errors in my statements but not usually omissions. Also I don't recall the words all the time but I do recall the meaning of each law or part thereof. When I don't explain part of it then I can't sleep at night until II come back to that page on this web site and finish it or correct it.

Do you know that I can't even recall England ever confiscating private homes on a permanent basis. They may have though but I certainly don't remember it happening. I do remember that they would often remove the owners temporarily to house troops even in peace time. Then when they left the house was intact. They gave it back to the owners as well as a payment. About half the people who fought against the English cited this action as the main reason for fighting them.

The issue would not have come up in an amendment if it was not seen as being incredibly important. .

Why else do you think this one issue deserves to be part of an amendment? It's obvious that it had to be right at the top of the list of the contributing causes for the Revolutionary War for it to have been made into part of an amendment in the Constitution.

*There are two main things that made the United States a great nation. Inventions and ownership of private property.

The first was the effective patent system-which assured American's that they could reap the rewards of their inventive thoughts for 17 years. The strong U.S. patent system which I invested a lot of my time (as Thomas Jefferson) establishing was completely new. This kind of protection was lacking in almost all other countries of the world 200 years ago. As such there was no reward for creativity, industry and hard work, People in other countries mostly lived from day to day and consequently hand to mouth since their reward for invention was to have it stolen by others and usually right away. Then you often got murdered whether or not you complained about the theft. The U.S. changed all this.

However, now the United States is failing to enforce it's rights to protect patents from foreign theft. Especially by Chinese rogue manufaacturers.

The second thing that made us a great nation is real private land ownership. The fact is that true private land ownership inspires and helps people feel not only secure but to simply be able to plan for a stable future which they can rely on. It establishes an entirely different way of thinking and living than ever previously existed on earth. It was much better for the nation, the individuals and especially for their children. It used to assure Americans that they could safely invest in a tomorrow by buying their own home and improving on it with the main assurance being that it would not be taken from them and given to someone else. They could rest assured that they could live in their home for the rest of their life.

Real private ownership of land was virtually unknown by the major European nations. Their aristocrats usually owned all the property. When they didn't they could use any number of ways to take any property they wanted. In only a few situation were they prohibited by laws but even in those cases they could always just wait until a war came along which usually happened about every ten years. Then all the taxes were raised but they decided the amount. They would then raise the taxes of those individuals whose property they wanted to usury rates. Then they would systematically confiscate the peasants property for non payment. The peasant was seen as being treasonous if he complained and he could be hanged for that. They often were hanged because of false testimony just to clean up the 'loose ends'.

The worst was Czarist Russia where all the land belonged to the Czar. It was exactly the same under the communists but in the guise of the land belonging to the state. The effect of this atrophied Russia as it would any country. The reason is simple. Nobody cares about building for a future which is uncertain and unclear.

Since private land in the U.S. can now be taken by any local government and be given to a corporation (even if only one person owns that corporation) nobody in the U.S. truly owns the land that they have paid for and built on. It's only yours to administer for as long as the local government favors you. When they favor another person (who owns a corporation) who claims that your land would be better for the local government if their corporation owned your land then that land will soon no longer belong to you.

**The 100 Army 'friends' were to act as the attorneys seconds in duels. These 100 were saber experts who had signed a list of 100 mostly Revolutionary War vets. These saber experts were to act as seconds for the 22 attorneys and 9 judges when they were challenged to a duel by Tories. The attorney was instructed as their choice of weapons to chose the one handed sword of their own choosing (that included sabers) and to meet at dawn. Then when they cut their hand later that day with a pen knife the army would send in one of those 100 ringers as their 'second'.

The armies of Europe and these Tory assassins were all trained to parry with swords in pretty much only one European style.

The U.S. Army had sent a few of their best officers to train in Europe at the best fencing schools. When these men returned they got together and figured out over 50 moves using heavy sabers which would specifically counter that phenomenal European fencing. To make a long story short these duels lasted an average of less than five seconds! Typically the army officer would leave what appeared to be an opening low and to his right. The he would block the other man's well trained trust to the ground, then spin a 360 degrees clockwise and slash across the man's chest with his arm and saber fully extended. The three and a half pound heavy saber (right) traveled at about 90 mph and nothing could block it. Skill was not important and only a heavier sword which did not exist could block that move. The medium saber (right) was over twice as heavy as the typical dueling sword and would cut the Tory literally in half sometimes.

The Army officer would then challenge the mans second and kill him too. Murder was more like it, but then murder was what these torys had been planning all along.

They killed every single English assassin that was sent to challenge these 22 attorneys and 9 judges who had signed the Declaration of Independence. Probably there were 40-50 of these duels all told. The English would have those records. What is on record in the US will probably be the old class schedules of West Point Cadets. They took two years (I think) of regular fencing with a regular sword and never once were even allowed to pick up a saber. Then when they thought they were hot stuff about the second or third year an old weak officer would come in and challenge the young men with his saber. He would beat them every time. Most people think that a light sword can beat a heavier saber but never if the person with the saber also knows the sword. A saber in trained hands can deflect or block every sword move but the sword cannot effectively block a heavy sabers slashing motion if it is moving at a high speed. The instructors in Europe never told their students this fact in the 18th and 19th century and never taught them how to counter our deadly blows with our sabers. They often had to learn this fact the hard way.

Napoleon was the first main European General to find this information out and he got it from the U.S. Army though I don't how. Napoleon's calvary decimated the Russian's with medium heavy sabers and then everyone in Europe found out about this semi secret American weapon.

.

Previous Page

© 2005-8 John Pinil